You keep saying the majority of Gun Violence. I'm talking about mass murders. Not shooting a person or two. But killing five or more people. The one in the movies the shooter used an assault rifle. The same weapon was used in NewTown. It might not be a majority but compared to the one or two deaths hand guns result in compared to the number of deaths assault rifles.

I'm pretty sure they are almost even. Hand Guns are not what Dems are pushing for. No one wants to take away your weapons. This is about assault rifles. Weapons designed even if semi or automatic to shoot the most amount of bullets. The Longest time to re-load because of more clips. The newest Dem want to ban high capacity magazine.

Why does a person need a weapon with more then 10 bullets loaded in?

Considering how comparitively -rare- mass murders are considering the number of "assault weapons" in circulation, punishing responsible gun owners for the actions of a few bad eggs is both unethical at its core and an abrogation of constitutionally guaranteed liberties. Especially considering that when establishing limits to any liberty, one has to ask whether or not the social benefit is worth the precedent the limitation sets; in this case, it isn't, because banning assault rifles would in all likelyhood not prevent such events from happening.

Why do they need a Hummer when a sedan provides the same functionality with vastly less risk in terms of accidents and ecological damage? The answer is; it does not matter.

Never mind that banning high capacity magazines is a stupid notion given how easy it is to modify magazines to increase their capacity. That, and it does nothing to reduce the number of said magazines already in circulation.

In case no one else has posted this. At least we got back some "clarification" out of the NRA.

(CNN) -- Facing widespread outrage over the National Rifle Association's response to the Newtown, Connecticut, school massacre, the group's president Thursday tried to clarify, saying that schools should decide for themselves how to protect their children.

"Some will want police officers there. Others of them will want private security guards," David Keene said in an exclusive CNN interview. "There may be some place they want volunteers to do it. We're willing to work with everybody on those questions."

The nation's largest teachers union liked some of Keene's comments, but said the NRA is ignoring crucial points to prevent school shootings.

Keene's interview came nearly a week after NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre addressed media -- but did not take questions -- and said that all schools in the United States should immediately have armed officers. That is the only way, LaPierre said, to prevent another massacre like that at Sandy Hook Elementary, which left 20 children and six adults dead.

Sir Robin, the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir-Lancelot.
Who had nearly fought the Dragon of Angnor.
Who had almost stood up to the vicious Chicken of Bristol.
And who had personally wet himself, at the Battle of Badon Hill.

So cops shouldn't have guns, since someone may just take it and use it.

Nope. I never said cops shouldn't have guns. Not once. I am pointing out that three officers around one person didnt make them any safer. More guns to equal more guns is NOT the answer. How is one officer for every school going to go? Doesn't this prove it wont stop a shooting. The shooter was a bad very bad thankfully they didn't die.

Originally Posted by Svifnymr

Not according to any of the statistics we've seen in any of the current threads, that I noticed at least. I think we've established that you don't understand how firearms work in any real sense though. I'm not sure why you think we're being dishonest when we tell you that an AR15 doesn't fire any faster than any other semiautomatic rifle does, nor even a semiautomatic handgun. Hit youtube for Miculek or the Benelli shotgun guy. Or, see if any three-gun matchs have video's up and you can see a timed course of fire.

I explained this to several several people before. Just because you do not believe something to be fact. Does not in fact make what I said un accurate. I posted videos that show what a weapon can do and its almost laugh out loud funny you would compare a rifle (hunting one) long ranged scope like to an AR-15. As for assult Rifle the President has called them assault rifles. The shops call them assault rifle. If you Google their defined meaning that's what they are. But this discussion is not what I know.

Its about if these weapons should be in the hands of the public.

Originally Posted by Svifnymr

We don't know why he "Only" injured them. All we know is that they came away with injuries. They also wear vests. If he had gone into a place that didn't have any cops with his own gun, how many would be injured vs dead?

That's because the man was a horrible shot. He shot one of the officer more then twice. If He had aimed at a more vital organ and killed them. Would it proved my point or is shooting at them but not killing. Not bad enough?

The answer is not more guns. By that logic. Those officers should have been safe since they are all trained. But even they ended up shot and likely worse if the gunman wasn't such a bad shot.

I don't buy the idea of armed officers in schools either, but for a different reason than you do I'm sure.

These "armed officers" are most likely not going to be veteran police officers. They are going to be poorly trained employees of some security firm. Most, if not 9/10 of these guys are completely incompetent and have pitiful amounts of training. I am speaking from example, as we have them "guarding" the gates to our base.......a base that houses Naval Special Warfare personnel, lol.

The only way "armed guards" in schools is going to work is if you get well trained federal law enforcement or former military personnel in there, and that would be too cost prohibitive as those guys aren't going to waste their time guarding a school for the pitiful wages offered.

No civilian needs an automatic/semi auto rifle. Pretty sure deer can be killed with a standard bolt-action.
And please don't bring up the "protecting your home" crap. I'm doing perfectly ok protecting my home with no firearms whatsoever.
Relying on a constitution that was written generations ago is absolutely backwards. Things change.
"but they said when they wrote it we can carry guns" oh please just shut up.

Nope. I never said cops shouldn't have guns. Not once. I am pointing out that three officers around one person didnt make them any safer. More guns to equal more guns is NOT the answer. How is one officer for every school going to go? Doesn't this prove it wont stop a shooting. The shooter was a bad very bad thankfully they didn't die.

You understand that the issue was not that they had guns, since they can't USE them against an unarmed guy? And I'm not saying everyone should be armed or anything, but you seem to neglect the fact that the cops with guns DID stop the guy.

I explained this to several several people before. Just because you do not believe something to be fact. Does not in fact make what I said un accurate. I posted videos that show what a weapon can do and its almost laugh out loud funny you would compare a rifle (hunting one) long ranged scope like to an AR-15.

It's not a matter of "belief", it's a matter of me understanding firearms and you not. Look for the miculek video and tell me how the man shoots slower than an AR15 with a revolver. A bolt action hunting rifle is slower, but any semi-automatic will fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. The rest is up to the shooter's capability, not the weapons.

As for assult Rifle the President has called them assault rifles. The shops call them assault rifle. If you Google their defined meaning that's what they are. But this discussion is not what I know.

Not sure why you brought this up to me, I already said I don't care about the semantics, call it whatever you want to.

Its about if these weapons should be in the hands of the public.

The weapon is not the question, the owner is. You're just advocating banning a made up class of firearms based on cosmetics with no understanding of what makes a firearm work.

That's because the man was a horrible shot. He shot one of the officer more then twice. If He had aimed at a more vital organ and killed them. Would it proved my point or is shooting at them but not killing. Not bad enough?

Do you know what a bullet proof vest is? Most likely the man wasn't able to get a clear shot and any shot he did get hit the vest or non-vital organs.

But truthfully, I'm not even sure what your point is with the NJ incident.

No civilian needs an automatic/semi auto rifle. Pretty sure deer can be killed with a standard bolt-action.
And please don't bring up the "protecting your home" crap. I'm doing perfectly ok protecting my home with no firearms whatsoever.
Relying on a constitution that was written generations ago is absolutely backwards. Things change.
"but they said when they wrote it we can carry guns" oh please just shut up.

Again, no civilian needs to drive a Hummer. Need is simply irrelevant - they have the right, and they may exercise it as they wish as long as it hurts no one else.

You seem not to understand the concept of American Constitutional Law. In which case, it's best you don't comment.

Newtown doesn't seem to be about guns, it seems to be about lack of accountability and a mentally unstable 20 year old going his whole life without getting the mental help he should have.

Guns are a tool, like a hammer or a pair pliars used correctly they can save lives, in the wrong hands they can do damage.

I am not really all that shocked by the call to ban fire arms or change laws, which i actually agree with, but what i am not for is confusing one thing for another, but it does seem prudent to maybe address this element on its own.

I don't know anything about the story except for the link that FusedMass posted.

""A violent struggle occurred while the suspect was being processed," Gloucester Deputy Police Chief David Harkins said, according to Philadelphia TV station NBC10. The man was able to grab a gun and then opened fire."

So, yeah, he got a cops gun and shot cops with it, what bearing does this have on anything we've discussed here at all?

None really. I added more in a later post.

Originally Posted by SirRobin

Just as the China wacko, who only had a knife to use on those kids, failed to kill any of them. Not to mention that, like the firefighter ambush, its not actually a mass shooting. Mass shootings tend to involve four or more casualties and tend to be legal gun owners or get their weapons from legal gun owners.

Apparently it was also one of the cops own guns that he grabbed. So yeah, its more a, "its dangerous to be a cop," sort of thing. Still makes me wonder what LaPierre would blame though.

Originally Posted by Svifnymr

There have been interviews with Feinstein and others where it's obvious that they judge the guns by their looks. It was years ago though, so not sure if they're still floating around. And again, the idea that a 30-06 garand fires slower or less powerfully than some other, meaner looking rifle is nonsense. It shows a complete lack of understanding of firearms.

Odd, it always seemed clear to me that that was the best they could get through. Now I would be the last one to accuse a politician of honesty, whichever side of the aisle they sit on, so that may well have been part of trying to sell it. Now, again, with internet tubes and reagan never raised taxes, I would never accuse politicians of being all that smart either. However, again again, are we getting anything back from the other side of the aisle besides "get guards and blame video games?"

Originally Posted by Svifnymr

The conversations run long, but when replying it's nice to look at what I've said previously. The common denominator between the weapons they chose was price point, nothing else. AR15's of "banned" or "post ban" configuration were readily available to anyone.

Cheap? They spent $500 on a TEC-9. The RFLPWCP you showed earlier is available for as little as $593. Well $614 when you follow the link. So did the ban make the FAWB's more expensive? Or are firearms just cheaper nowadays?

Originally Posted by Svifnymr

You can say that as much as you want, but they don't have a higher rate of fire. They may in some cases have a theoretical max rate of fire that varies, but none of them will shoot slower than you can pull the trigger, so there is no higher effective rate of fire.

Well that's why I reference effective rate of fire instead of just rate of fire. Smaller magazine sizes, referenced in the first post of this thread, updating and improving the FAWB to include more semiautomatics, the TEC-9 is actually a semiautomatic handgun, and various other bits and pieces, can be used to help restrict access to the kinds of firearms that make it easier for mass shooters to kill more people.

Originally Posted by Svifnymr

If you want to regulate private sales of firearms, then it should apply equally whether at a gun show or your neighbors house. Calling it a "gun show loophole" is disingenuous because it paints the gun show as somehow being different than any other forum.

Its not disingenuous. Its a nickname, a pseudonym. It doesn't have to be completely accurate. Its not like it takes a lot of effort to find out what it means.

Originally Posted by Svifnymr

They may have been worried about losing, or maybe not, who knows. What we can, IMO, safely agree on is that defending the case would have cost a lot of money. The insurance company figured it'd cost more than the half-mil to defend (win or lose), and I'd think that's accurate enough in theory.

Either way, my point was more that saying "Bushmaster and Dealer pay 2.5 mil" is true, but misrepresents that BM paid out half a mil of it without being found negligent in any fashion.

Oh it would have cost a lot, though I would lean more towards the stakes being incredibly high. Not just for Bushmaster either. Like we have seen over and over again. Its a much safer bet to just settle.

Sir Robin, the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir-Lancelot.
Who had nearly fought the Dragon of Angnor.
Who had almost stood up to the vicious Chicken of Bristol.
And who had personally wet himself, at the Battle of Badon Hill.

Lets look at this. People like to claim that an AR-15 is NOT used in a MAJORITY of the High Profile Murder. Lets count them so far Columbine used an AR-15. In the movies they used an AR-15. In NewTown actually the ONLY weapon he used was the AR-15. Actually shot and killed himself with a handgun. We all remember the fire fighters two of them which lost their lives while responding to a fire.

Well. Now we know the weapons they used. In fact. He had someone else buy them for him.

Looking from the article below. He had an AR-15. That's ANOTHER shooting that used the exact same weapon. Also He bought a ShotGun. But since you have re-load a Shotgun.

Sewell said the state charge is connected to the purchase of an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and a 12-gauge shotgun that William Spengler had with him Monday when firefighters Michael Chiapperini and Tomasz Kaczowka were gunned down. Three other people were wounded before the 62-year-old Spengler killed himself. He also had a .38-caliber revolver, but Nguyen is not connected to that gun, Sewell said.

The .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle, which had a combat-style flash suppressor, is similar to the one used by the gunman who massacred 20 children and six women in a Newtown, Conn., elementary school earlier this month.

I don't buy the idea of armed officers in schools either, but for a different reason than you do I'm sure.

These "armed officers" are most likely not going to be veteran police officers. They are going to be poorly trained employees of some security firm. Most, if not 9/10 of these guys are completely incompetent and have pitiful amounts of training. I am speaking from example, as we have them "guarding" the gates to our base.......a base that houses Naval Special Warfare personnel, lol.

The only way "armed guards" in schools is going to work is if you get well trained federal law enforcement or former military personnel in there, and that would be too cost prohibitive as those guys aren't going to waste their time guarding a school for the pitiful wages offered.

Along those lines but a little different for me. I just don't see how potentially having more bullets whizzing around our children's heads would be better than fewer. Almost eight billion a year could be just the start. Having the numbers and training we should have could easily double that. They took months getting ready for Columbine. Their poor bomb making skills saved far more lives than the deputy eating in the parking lot.

For the record, I'm not dumping on the deputy. It can be hard for anyone to predict what insane people will do. Insane people are, well, insane. However, it does show that even trained personnel may be nowhere near trained enough.

Sir Robin, the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir-Lancelot.
Who had nearly fought the Dragon of Angnor.
Who had almost stood up to the vicious Chicken of Bristol.
And who had personally wet himself, at the Battle of Badon Hill.

Odd, it always seemed clear to me that that was the best they could get through.

The news clings to the idea that Assault Weapons are machine guns, many of the video's are actually machineguns even. They really do count on ignorance in the face of what the guns are, to make it seem like they do something more than they do. The pistol grip is the big thing for them, really, but other features that make it an assault weapon is a bayonet lug (do any of the folks that want to ban these guns actually care about the possibility of a bayonet?), a collapsible stock, a flash hider (the flash hider was a huge thing for some folks, I really wish I could find some of the old stuff where they made it out to be a silencer).

Now I would be the last one to accuse a politician of honesty, whichever side of the aisle they sit on, so that may well have been part of trying to sell it. Now, again, with internet tubes and reagan never raised taxes, I would never accuse politicians of being all that smart either. However, again again, are we getting anything back from the other side of the aisle besides "get guards and blame video games?"

If you had to say something about me, I wouldn't say I'm political, but I have a very low opinion of the news services nowadays. Sure it started when I was a child and they said playing D&D meant I was a devil worshipper, but it hasn't gotten any better since. The video game thing was dumb of them, but a perfect example of how folks from a spectrum of society view something as "wrong" without understanding it. One of the gun dealers I know is a big machinegun dealer (all legal and such) and has 4 xbox 360's in his place so they can play when it's slow and boring.Guns are fun to shoot, and for folks with the money (it's not a cheap hobby), it's just another enjoyable thing to do.

Same with violent movies, while I may regard them as a sign of the violent times, I don't regard them as causing violence (though maybe stupidity in some cases...). The movie industry is also happy to point fingers at video games as a scapegoat, anything to deflect blame.

You've got a case of politicians and newsmen that don't want to educate themselves, let alone educate the people they're talking to. They want to prey on people's emotions to get ratings.

Cheap? They spent $500 on a TEC-9. The RFLPWCP you showed earlier is available for as little as $593. Well $614 when you follow the link. So did the ban make the FAWB's more expensive? Or are firearms just cheaper nowadays?

I saw the "$500 pistol" in your post, wasn't sure if that was the Tec-9 though. Tec 9's topped out at $250 at most in every market I'd ever seen. Not sure of the story behind that (baseless supposition would say that the seller charged them a lot because he knew they couldn't get a gun elsewhere or something). DPMS is a cheaper brand of AR15 than the ABC's (Armalite, Bushmaster, Colt), not as well known.
To use a Bushmaster, during the ban a "post ban" (fixed stock, no flashhider) would have been in the $700 range, now they're up to $900 range.

Its not disingenuous. Its a nickname, a pseudonym. It doesn't have to be completely accurate. Its not like it takes a lot of effort to find out what it means.

It's not a nickname, when The Brady Campaign/ Handgun Control Inc lost ground on the AWB and other initiatives, they went after gun shows. They cooked up the "gun show loophole" term, saying you could buy from a dealer at a show without a background check. When that was disproved they went for the "most criminals get guns at shows!" as the loophole, but ATF tracing data didn't indicate that. They created a term, then tried to justify it.

Oh it would have cost a lot, though I would lean more towards the stakes being incredibly high. Not just for Bushmaster either. Like we have seen over and over again. Its a much safer bet to just settle.

Right, makes sense why they settled. What I remember of the case, it was brought by Handgun Control Inc on behalf of the victims, to try to force Bushmaster through the lawsuit to change their guns. Bushmaster took the money to the families, thus pre-empting the lawsuit entirely.

---------- Post added 2012-12-28 at 06:30 PM ----------

Originally Posted by FusedMass

Lets look at this. People like to claim that an AR-15 is NOT used in a MAJORITY of the High Profile Murder.

You could look at one of the charts already posted in this thread if you prefer? It doesn't support your opinion though.

Also He bought a ShotGun. But since you have re-load a Shotgun.

This may sound stupid, but do you read the responses you get? You've been repeatedly told how shotguns work, but you still repeat the same misinformation.

Considering how comparitively -rare- mass murders are considering the number of "assault weapons" in circulation, punishing responsible gun owners for the actions of a few bad eggs is both unethical at its core and an abrogation of constitutionally guaranteed liberties. Especially considering that when establishing limits to any liberty, one has to ask whether or not the social benefit is worth the precedent the limitation sets; in this case, it isn't, because banning assault rifles would in all likelyhood not prevent such events from happening.

Why do they need a Hummer when a sedan provides the same functionality with vastly less risk in terms of accidents and ecological damage? The answer is; it does not matter.

Never mind that banning high capacity magazines is a stupid notion given how easy it is to modify magazines to increase their capacity. That, and it does nothing to reduce the number of said magazines already in circulation.

It is not a punishment. We are simply determining what is acceptable and what is not. We don't have equal rights laws because we are punishing responsible people for the actions of a "few bad eggs." We are saying it is not acceptable to discriminate. While the Supreme Court may appear to currently have a very liberal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. It hardly means it will stay that way. Owning an assault weapon is no more a right than owning an assault rifle.

Since we cannot make mass shootings impossible. We can at least make it harder for mass shooters to kill as many as they do. An option, and if you have not guessed I think an excellent one, for doing this is lowering their effective rate of fire. Through restricting their access to the kinds of weapons, like semiautomatics, that make it easier for them to kill more people. I'm hardly saying its the only thing we should do. However, it is one of them.

Mass shootings more than make up for their rarity with how much carnage they can inflict. Not only on the casualties themselves, but to entire communities. Again, we can't make mass shootings impossible. However we can make them harder and when the cost of ensuring gun owners' conveniences includes first-graders in their classrooms? Its time to seriously rethink whether that convenience is worth it.

Sir Robin, the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir-Lancelot.
Who had nearly fought the Dragon of Angnor.
Who had almost stood up to the vicious Chicken of Bristol.
And who had personally wet himself, at the Battle of Badon Hill.

Lets look at this. People like to claim that an AR-15 is NOT used in a MAJORITY of the High Profile Murder. Lets count them so far Columbine used an AR-15. In the movies they used an AR-15. In NewTown actually the ONLY weapon he used was the AR-15. Actually shot and killed himself with a handgun. We all remember the fire fighters two of them which lost their lives while responding to a fire.

Well. Now we know the weapons they used. In fact. He had someone else buy them for him.

Looking from the article below. He had an AR-15. That's ANOTHER shooting that used the exact same weapon. Also He bought a ShotGun. But since you have re-load a Shotgun.

Sewell said the state charge is connected to the purchase of an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and a 12-gauge shotgun that William Spengler had with him Monday when firefighters Michael Chiapperini and Tomasz Kaczowka were gunned down. Three other people were wounded before the 62-year-old Spengler killed himself. He also had a .38-caliber revolver, but Nguyen is not connected to that gun, Sewell said.

The .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle, which had a combat-style flash suppressor, is similar to the one used by the gunman who massacred 20 children and six women in a Newtown, Conn., elementary school earlier this month.

Just want to point this out...

The Columbine shooting occurred in 1999 -- slap in the middle of the ban on assault rifles. An AR-15 was not used in the shooting.

This is what I find interesting. Instead of commenting on the mass murders you know like the one in NewTown which killed MORE people then Columbine. 20 Children and 7 adults died less then a few months ago. After that two fire fighters lost their life and even before that dozens of people were shot and killed inside a crowded movie.

What do all these murders have in common. AR-15. Its been proven to recent information. The two fire fighters ambushed were responding to a call and its confirmed someone bought an AR-15 for this man. That's pretty new and important information since people argue most mass murders do not contain this weapon.

Can we at least admit there is a problem with placing high powered military assault rifles in hands of the general public. If you say no. Look at all the recent killings. We do not want to take away the right to carry a concealed hand gun. Just the Military type of weapons. I know Military Assault weapon term is not going to agree with everyone.

But the President used it. I look it up online and that's what it means. It's a distraction from the real situation. Why would the general public need this type of weapon? whats the limit if we have right to bear arms. Are AK-47 off the table as well. Why do we stop? People have commented on my use of the term of the word. Commented about right to bear arms.

But not why they need this weapon used in two of the last deadly mass shootings.

This is what I find interesting. Instead of commenting on the mass murders you know like the one in NewTown which killed MORE people then Columbine. 20 Children and 7 adults died less then a few months ago. After that two fire fighters lost their life and even before that dozens of people were shot and killed inside a crowded movie.

What do all these murders have in common. AR-15. Its been proven to recent information. The two fire fighters ambushed were responding to a call and its confirmed someone bought an AR-15 for this man. That's pretty new and important information since people argue most mass murders do not contain this weapon.

Can we at least admit there is a problem with placing high powered military assault rifles in hands of the general public. If you say no. Look at all the recent killings. We do not want to take away the right to carry a concealed hand gun. Just the Military type of weapons. I know Military Assault weapon term is not going to agree with everyone.

But the President used it. I look it up online and that's what it means. It's a distraction from the real situation. Why would the general public need this type of weapon? whats the limit if we have right to bear arms. Are AK-47 off the table as well. Why do we stop? People have commented on my use of the term of the word. Commented about right to bear arms.

But not why they need this weapon used in two of the last deadly mass shootings.

The two deadliest mass murders in US history didn't even involve firearms.

What I think you're failing to understand is that the "military" firearm you're referring to shoots a round that is also found in other rifles. I realize that AR-15s look "deadly," but sans flash light and jet black "tactical" exterior, you have a semi-automatic rifle just like any other.

Just as much carnage could have been inflicted at the school with almost any firearm, excluding black powder and other rare examples.

This is what I find interesting. Instead of commenting on the mass murders you know like the one in NewTown which killed MORE people then Columbine. 20 Children and 7 adults died less then a few months ago. After that two fire fighters lost their life and even before that dozens of people were shot and killed inside a crowded movie.

What do all these murders have in common. AR-15. Its been proven to recent information. The two fire fighters ambushed were responding to a call and its confirmed someone bought an AR-15 for this man. That's pretty new and important information since people argue most mass murders do not contain this weapon.

Can we at least admit there is a problem with placing high powered military assault rifles in hands of the general public. If you say no. Look at all the recent killings. We do not want to take away the right to carry a concealed hand gun. Just the Military type of weapons. I know Military Assault weapon term is not going to agree with everyone.

But the President used it. I look it up online and that's what it means. It's a distraction from the real situation. Why would the general public need this type of weapon? whats the limit if we have right to bear arms. Are AK-47 off the table as well. Why do we stop? People have commented on my use of the term of the word. Commented about right to bear arms.

But not why they need this weapon used in two of the last deadly mass shootings.